The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent, Florida State Hospital, is an "employer" as statutorily defined at Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Behavioral Health Solutions LLC is a private business entity (BHS). The Petitioner was employed by BHS as a clerk- typist beginning on October 6, 2006, and until February 6, 2007, when she was terminated. BHS and the Department of Children and Family Services/Florida State Hospital entered into a contract on September 16, 2006, whereby BHS was to be responsible for providing staff for various positions for the provision of services to residents of Florida State Hospital. One of those positions was that occupied by the Petitioner, at times pertinent to this proceeding. The contract provided that BHS would be responsible for hiring, transferring, promoting, discipline, and discharge/termination of BHS staff. BHS was also responsible for providing its staff with salaries, benefits, compensation packages and training. BHS has its own organizational structure which was not integrated into that of the Respondent Florida State Hospital's organizational structure. The Respondent Florida State Hospital was charged with supervising BHS's staff and with recommendations where required, for disciplinary action or removal from the work site. BHS had the final authority to reassign, discipline or terminate BHS staff, however, by the terms of the contract. The Petitioner was hired by BHS as of October 6, 2006. The offer of employment which she accepted came from BHS. The Petitioner was told later that she was terminated in February 2007 by Angie Burge, the BHS Human Resources Manager. The Petitioner's date of employment were October 6, 2006, through February 6, 2007. The testimony of Angie Burge and Amy Bryant establishes that BHS employees such as the Petitioner, were trained by BHS. Ms. Bryant established through her testimony, as the Operations and Management Consultant for the Department of Children and Families (Department) that neither the Department nor Florida State Hospital had controlling responsibility over employee relations matters regarding BHS's staff/employees, such as the Petitioner. Although she and Florida State Hospital worked in conjunction with Ms. Burge and BHS on employee training requirements, BHS employees, including the Petitioner, were trained by BHS and its staff. BHS and the Respondent Florida State Hospital had a contract for BHS to provide staff for the forensic unit at Florida State Hospital, where the Petitioner was employed by BHS and the contract included the requirement that BHS operate that unit. At orientation, BHS provided its employees or new hires, including the Petitioner, all polices and procedures of BHS and trained them as to such policies and procedures. Ms. Burge, a BHS staff member, provided that training. BHS had authority to hire employees or to terminate them or discipline them and to make final decisions on the performance of the duties of the staff it hired, including the Petitioner. Florida State Hospital and the Department did not have final authority on such matters but could only recommend to BHS. The salary and benefits plan of BHS was very different from that of Florida State Hospital. It was based upon the parent company's pay and benefits scheme, the parent company being Lakeview Center, Inc. The administrators of Florida State Hospital did not have any decision-making authority in employee regulation, discipline, hiring, and termination decisions. Ms. Burge, the BHS Human Resources Manager, made the decision and informed the Petitioner of her termination. The Petitioner has not presented persuasive evidence that Florida State Hospital had sufficient control over the terms and conditions of the Petitioner's employment, or the employment of other BHS staff members, so that such staff members, including the Petitioner, could be deemed employees of the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and the arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety due to lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Corrine Hamilton 440 South Cone Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Jacqueline H. Smith, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324-1000
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this final order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Sections 120.68 and 766.311, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. See Section 766.311, Florida Statutes, and Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association v. Carreras, 598 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. During times material herein, Petitioner was employed as a Unit Treatment Shift (UTR) Supervisor at South Florida State Hospital, Hollywood, Florida. Her duties included setting up medications; dispensing and administering medications, charting medications and taking patients from the ward for meals. Petitioner also performed related duties such as writing medical reports and keeping the ward areas clean. On October 3, 1980, Petitioner was injured while on duty at South Florida State Hospital. Petitioner suffered a back injury which required two back operations during 1981 and 1982 (laminectomies). Petitioner suffered a previous back injury during 1976, a herniated disc and, as a result thereof, had two disc operations wherein discs were removed. Petitioner remained under the treatment and care of Dr. George Crane until December 6, 1983. Dr. Crane determined that Petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement on August 11, 1983 and confirmed that Petitioner was employable as of approximately March, 1983. That release was confirmed by letter dated October 20, 1983 from Dr. George Crane, M.D. Prior to that time, Petitioner had been determined unable to sit, stand, lift, push or carry objects without severe pain. Also, during the period 1980 when she was injured through the time of her release by Dr. Crane, Petitioner had endured substantial pain requiring that she spend a great deal of her time in bed. She had, on occasion, left groceries in the store due to excruciating pain. (Testimony of Petitioner) Although Dr. Crane considered that Petitioner was employable as early as March of 1983, he suggested during August of 1983 that Petitioner attend a one week's visit to the Pain Center in Miami, Florida. Evidence reveals that while Dr. Crane suggested that Petitioner visit the Pain Center, he did not consider that her condition rendered her unemployable. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) Bradford Drake, 1/ a Benefits Coordinator employed by Respondent as a Personnel Technician I, contacted Dr. Crane's office and confirmed his release of Petitioner to return to work. Armed with that confirmation, Mr. Drake contacted Petitioner and advised her of Dr. Crane's release of her to return to work. By letter dated December 7, 1983, Petitioner was advised by Barbara Nickels, Personnel Officer, that "This will serve to officially inform you that you are to return to your UTR Shift Supervisor position, Dade/Collier Ward, on Monday, December 12, 1983 at 8:00 a.m. Failure to report to your position after three days from December 12, 1983 will be considered abandonment of position and resignation from the State of Florida career service at South Florida State Hospital. This action is pursuant to the State of Florida rules and regulations, Section 22A-7.10(2)." (Respondent's Exhibit 4) Additionally, by letter dated December 19, 1983, Petitioner was advised by Robert A. Burton, hospital Administrator, that effective the close of business December 19, 1983, Petitioner was considered to have abandoned her position and resigned from the State of Florida career service at South Florida State Hospital. Petitioner was familiar with Respondent's Employee Handbook including the Employee Standards of Conduct and had received a copy of HRS Pamphlet 60-1 on May 18, 1979. Contained in that pamphlet is an employee policy concerning absences. An employee absent for three consecutive days without authorization may be considered to have abandoned that position and resigned. Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2 and Section 22A-7.10(2), Florida Administrative Code. During January of 1984, Petitioner was under the care and treatment of Dr. Paul Wand, a neurologist. Respondent, through employees of the personnel office, was not familiar with the treatment procedures to Petitioner by Dr. Paul Wand. To allow the Petitioner the benefit of doubt, Mr. Drake arranged for Dr. Crane to see the Petitioner during December of 1983 and Dr. Crane noted no change in the Petitioner's maximum medical improvement and considered her employable at that time. (Testimony of Bradford Drake and report of Petitioner's office visit to Dr. Crane dated December 6, 1983, Petitioner's Exhibit 3) In an instance where an employee, as Petitioner, tenders documentation that she is being treated by another physician, such a physician is called and the treatment is verified by staff and the personnel office of Respondent. In such instances, latitude is given that employee to tender documentation which would be considered in determining whether or not an employee is employable based on the opinion of the "other" physician. However, as noted earlier herein, Petitioner was primarily treated by Dr. Crane.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended: That the Secretary of the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding that, based on Petitioner's failure to report to her position as UTR Shift Supervisor after three days from December 12, 1983, Petitioner abandoned her position of employment and resigned from the State of Florida career service at South Florida State Hospital. 2/ RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1984.
Findings Of Fact On July 31, 1987, DOA mailed a Request for Proposal, (RFP), to various Health Maintenance Organizations, (HMOs), soliciting proposals for the providing of HMO services in the Orlando service area. Petitioner, Cigna, and the various Intervenors herein, submitted proposals which were opened by DOA on August 28, 1987, with a contemplated date of award of September 14, 1987 and an effective date of contract on January 1, 1988. Section 2 of the RFP defined the general purposes of the procurement as being to meet benefit objectives of DOA and to provide high quality benefits and services to state employees. Specifically, the objectives of the RFP were: A proactive approach to cost containment, including an emphasis on aggressive claims management, utilization review, and superior statistical reporting. Quality medical care which encourages health promotion, disease prevention, early diagnosis and treatment. Stability in the financial structure of offered health plans. Professional, high quality service in all administrative areas including claims processing, enrollment, membership services, grievances, and communications. Competitive premium rates which take into account the demographics and, if appropriate, the claims experience of state employees. Other stated objectives included: Have each county or contiguous group of counties be considered one service area. Award no more than two contracts per service area; however, the awards will be based on the HMO's ability to respond to the needs of employees and on accessibility by employees. Have reciprocal agreements between locations, if an HMO has multiple service areas. Enter into a two year, non-experience rates contract. A provision will be included tying renewal action at each of the two renewals to the consumer price index, (CPI), for medical care services. In order to be considered as a "qualified" proposer, an organization had to be licensed by the Department of Insurance pursuant to Part II, Chapter 641, Florida Statutes. Section IX of the RFP listed five major criteria for evaluation of the proposals. They were: Premium Cost Extensiveness of service area - by county and/or contiguous counties. Plan Benefits as follows: Covered services Limitations and exclusions Co-payments, deductibles, and coinsurance features Range of providers including specialists and numbers of hospitals D. Out of service area coverage F. Grievance procedures Accessibility as follows: Reciprocal agreements Provider locations Number of primary care physicians and specialists, in relation to membership Completeness of proposals The first four of the above objectives were called for by the Legislative action providing for these procurements to be effective January 1, 1988. The fifth, completeness of proposals, was not identified by the Legislature but was added by DOA. The Department reviewed and evaluated all the proposals submitted by Petitioner and the various Intervenors. Each proposer was evaluated by three individual evaluators. Two separate sets of evaluations were performed; the second coming upon the direction of the Secretary who, after the first evaluation and recommendation of award, concluded the standards for evaluation had been too subjective and directed a second evaluation utilizing more objective standards. During this second evaluation process, after the actual evaluations had been done but before the recommendation was forwarded to the Secretary, several computer treatments of the raw scores were accomplished by Mr. Nye because of additional unidentified factors brought to his attention. The final computer run identified that Central Florida Physicians, not a party to this action, received the highest point total followed by Health Options, Pru-Care, and Petitioner, Cigna. Mr. Nye, who had designed and supervised the evaluation process, recommended to the Secretary that Central Florida Physicians, Health Options, and Pru-Care receive the award even though the guidelines called for only two recommendees. Central Florida Physicians was recognized to be in financial difficulties though it received the highest rating, and in order to provide two viable candidates in the event that provider should be disqualified, Health Options and Pru-Care were added. Central Florida Physicians was, in fact, subsequently disqualified due to financial insolvency. This left Health Options and Pru-Care as the two providers with the highest evaluations and the Secretary made the award to them. At the final count, Health Options received a point total of 64.635; Pru-Care, 57.415; and Cigna, 56.83, or a difference of .585 between Pru-Care and Cigna. According to Mr. Black, an administrator with the Department of Insurance and responsible for the licensing of HMOs and other health care facilities, as of January 12, 1988, Pru- Care was not licensed in Volusia or Lake Counties and department records show that Pru-Care has never been or requested to be licensed in those counties. Mr. Beckerink, the Director of Planning for Cigna of Florida, who oversaw Cigna's proposal for the Orlando area and who reviewed DOA's evaluation of the various proposals submitted, carefully examined the evaluation forms for both Cigna and Pru- Care and concentrated on scores relating to costs, benefits, accessibility, service area, and completeness. He noted that Pru-Care received 10 points for proposing service in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Lake, and Volusia Counties though it is not licensed in the latter two, whereas Cigna received only 4 points for Orange and Seminole Counties. Cigna is licensed in all five counties and has hospitals and physicians in Seminole, Osceola, and Orange Counties. He contends Pru-Care received credit by the evaluators for five counties when it is licensed only in three, an unearned award of 4 points, and Cigna was awarded credit for only two counties when it is licensed in five, an improper denial of 6 points. According to Mr. Nye, the award to Pru-Care was based on its representation it would provide service in five counties. The Department of Insurance could not tell him, at the time, in which counties Pru-Care was licensed. As a result, he took the proposal, which indicated the five counties, at face value. Credit was given only for full counties to be served and Cigna's proposal indicated it would deliver service to two full counties and to only portions of three counties. The evidence indicates that Pru-Care's facilities are primarily in Orange and Seminole Counties with some service offered in the extreme northern portion of Osceola County, too far away for those individuals living in the southern portion of that county reasonably to take advantage of it. Mr. Nye indicates that driving time, which would be the problem here, is not a consideration in assessing accessibility, but merely a factor in quality of service. The department is not concerned with whether it is convenient for the employee to get to the service but merely whether the service will be offered to anyone residing in the county. For this reason, Pru-Care was awarded credit for Osceola county since it proposed to enroll any eligible employee living in the county whether service was convenient to that party or not, whereas Cigna, which limited it's enrollment in certain counties to those personnel living in only a part of the county, was not given any credit for those partially served counties. Mr. Nye admits that had he known Pru-Care was not fully licensed, he would have deferred to legal counsel, but would most likely not award points if a provider is not licensed in a county for which it proposes service. Mr. Breckerink identified additional areas in the evaluation wherein he believes errors were made, the correction of which would result in an adjustment of the award of points. For example, in evaluating plan benefits, the evaluator gave Pru- Care 20 points when only 10 points are available for award without a demonstration of additional services. For emergency room availability, Cigna was awarded 5 points when it should have received 10. In the area of co- payments, Cigna was awarded points and should have received 23. Concerning range of providers, Cigna's proposal lists seven hospitals yet the evaluation form only reflects six, resulting in a shortage of 10 points. As to turnaround time, Cigna indicated it would accomplish payment in 60 days whereas Pru-Care indicated it would in "an average" of two weeks. As a result, Mr. Breckerink, who points out Cigna's actual time is 30 days and it therefore should have been given 30 points, contends there is no opportunity for a valid comparison here since Pru-Care's answer is not responsive to the RFP's call for" an "expected" time. His point is well taken. With regard to accessibility, Mr. Breckerink states that Cigna got only 20 points for its two allowed counties but should have received 30 points since it has hospitals in three counties in the service area. DOA's rationale on this point is identical to that on the issue of full counties served. He also alleges that Cigna was shortchanged by at least 2 points on the number of counties in which specialty providers are represented and by at least 1 point on the number of providers. Mr. Nye admits Pru-Care should have received 5 points instead of 10 for benefits. This would reduce its' raw score in this area from 258 to 253 points. Nye contends, however, that the points awarded Pru-Care for its' turnaround time were correct. He does not consider the question to be a bad one since it was asked equally of all providers and each responded as it saw fit realizing that its response might become a part of a contractual obligation. This reasoning is specious at best and does not address the real question of the fairness and appropriateness of the question asked. Further, Mr. Nye also admitted that under certain circumstances, if Pru-Care were to lose credit for those two counties in which it was not shown to be licensed, the change could result in a difference sufficient to reverse the relative standings of Pru-Care and Cigna. Mr. Breckerink alleges, and Mr. Nye admits that multiple computer runs were made utilizing the raw scores developed by the evaluators before the recommendation as to award was forwarded to the Secretary. On the first run for the second evaluation, Cigna was in second place with a point total of 71.1 and Pru-Care was third with 65.86 points. On the second run, which Nye contends was done to make the computer run consistent with what had been said at the pre-bid conference and in the RFP, Cigna dropped from second place to third with 58. 2 points and Pru-Care went from third to fourth with 57.195 points. In the third run, which ultimately formed the basis for the award, the positions of Cigna and Pru-Care reversed with Cigna dropping to 56.83 points and Pru-Care rising to 57.415. Central Florida Physicians remained in first and Health Options in second. When Central Florida Physicians dropped out due to insolvency, Health Options became number one and the other two each went up one place in the standings without changing relative positions. According to Mr. Breckerink when the mistakes were identified and changes made in the raw scores, Cigna got a total of 23 more points but Pru-Care still got 16 more points than it should have. He contends that if the mistakes were accurately corrected, if Cigna were to get all the points it should and Pru- Care lose all it should not legitimately have, Cigna would come out higher in the overall ranking than Pru-Care. However, he admits there are factors involved about which he does not know which may affect the standings. What is clear is that while Mr. Breckerink could not clearly follow the evaluation procedure, neither can others charged with evaluating it. What is more, notwithstanding the direction given in the objectives of the procurement that only two providers be awarded contracts, the department continuously has been unable to abide by this guideline. In its September 11, 1987 recommendation after the first evaluation sequence, Mr. Nye recommended, for the Orlando service area, awards to Central Florida Physicians, Cigna, and Pru-Care for a part of the service area and an additional award to Health Options and Florida Health Care for other counties in the service area. When the Secretary directed the objective second evaluation, no change was made to the number of providers to be recommended (two), but again, on October 6, 1987, Mr. Nye recommended three providers, Central Florida Physicians, Health Options, and Cigna. No evidence was presented as to why this recommendation was not implemented, but it is seen that on October 26, 1987, Mr. Nye submitted his third set of recommendations to the Secretary, this time recommending only Central Florida Physicians, and Health Options. Being still unable to finalize the process, on October 30, 1987, Mr. Nye submitted his fourth set of recommendations to the Secretary recommending, for the most part, three providers, but specifically recommending Pru-Care for award in Lake and Volusia Counties, where it was arguably not even licensed. No justification or explanation for this vacillation was forthcoming from the Department and the exercise appears to have been clearly capricious.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration issue a Final Order rejecting all proposals submitted for the Orlando service area and readvertise for new proposals if deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1988 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5525BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By Petitioner Cigna: 1 - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence not a Finding of Fact. Second sentence accepted except for conclusion as to legal license status of Pru-Care. Rejected as a restatement of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. First three sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Balance accepted with the assumption that "those counties" indicates Lake and Volusia counties. First and second sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Third sentence accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. First and second sentences rejected as restatements of testimony. Third sentence accepted as a possibility and, not a fact. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein. Second sentence rejected. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted except for use of word "awarded" in last sentence. Award is a function of the Secretary. A better word would be "recommended". Accepted. Reject Accepted. Rejected. Accepted except for word "significantly". First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as not being a proper Finding of Fact. For Respondent, DHRS: 1 - 14. Accepted and incorporated as appropriate. 15 - 16. Accepted. 17 - 19. Accepted. First, second, and fourth sentences accepted. Third sentence rejected as not supported by the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted except for the last three sub-paragraphs which are not supported by the evidence. Absent. 25 - 26. Accepted except for last sub-paragraph which is rejected as a conclusion. 27. Absent. 28 - 29. Accepted. 30. Accepted. 31 - 37. Absent. 38. Accepted. For Intervenor, Pru-Care: 1 & 2. 3. Rejected as a restatement of testimony and not a Finding of Fact. Accepted. 4 - 5. Accepted. 6 - 7. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact. 8 - 10. Accepted. 11. Accepted. 12. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact. 13 - 14. Accepted. 15. Rejected as not being a Finding of Fact except for 16 - 17. last sentence which is accepted. Accepted. 18. Accepted. For Intervenor, Health Options: 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Accepted except for the seventh sentence which is rejected. 12 - 13. Accepted. 14. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. 15 - 16. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: David Yon, Esquire 315 South Calhoun Street Suite 800 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 John Buchanan, Esquire 118 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jann Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Stanley Chapman, Esquire Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom, & Kitchen Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Larry Carnes, Esquire 515 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a request by Petitioner, Charles W. Leverson, Sr., for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust. If the request is approved, Petitioner would be allowed to return to work as a unit treatment rehabilitation specialist in a unit for developmentally disabled adults at Florida State Hospital (FSH). Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of approving or denying such requests. In a preliminary decision entered on an unknown date, a DCFS committee denied the request principally on the ground that Petitioner had minimized or denied the gravity of his disqualifying offenses. Petitioner is now barred from doing such work because of disqualifying offenses which occurred on December 16, 1990, and March 24, 1992. On the first date, Petitioner was arrested for the offense of aggrevated battery on his wife, a misdemeanor under Section 784.04, Florida Statutes (1990). On the second date, Petitioner was again arrested for five offenses, including battery on his wife in violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes (1991). As to the first charge, on January 26, 1993, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of battery and was placed on one year's supervised probation. He was also required to "[s]pend 15 weekends in the county jail." In addition, Petitioner was ordered "not [to] possess or consume any alcohol during the term of [his] probation," and to "[c]ontinue with counseling" (of an undisclosed nature). As to the second charge, Petitioner was found guilty by a jury on July 24, 1992, of committing battery on his wife in violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. A "not guilty" verdict was entered as to the remaining four charges. The record does not indicate the sentence, if any, that he received for this offense. Petitioner successfully completed all terms of his probation. Since his arrest in March 1992, he has not consumed any alcoholic beverages. This is an important consideration since both disqualifying offenses occurred when he was intoxicated. Petitioner began working at FSH on September 26, 1979. He was first employed as a support service aide but was eventually promoted to the position of unit treatment rehabilitation specialist, a position involving supervision of developmentally disabled adults. Because of a background screening which occurred in 1997, Petitioner's disqualifying offenses were discovered, and he was forced to resign effective February 12, 1998. He has requested an exemption so that he can return to his employment. Since being forced to resign some four months ago, he has not been employed. The two disqualifying offenses involve battery on Petitioner's long-time wife, Shirler. In both cases, she suffered injuries serious enough to require treatment at a local hospital. Shirler says, however, that Petitioner has "changed" since his 1992 arrest, and he no longer drinks, is communicative with her and the three children, and is a good father. Petitioner attends church, is a member of a lodge in Quincy, Florida, and has a much better attitude since he stopped drinking. He has received good work evaluations during his most recent years of employment at FSH. Former co-workers and supervisors attested to the fact that Petitioner has good rapport with his co-workers and residents, and he performs his stressful job with a "cheerful" and "pleasant" attitude. He was also described as one of the "better" employees in the forensic unit. In March 1987, or more than eleven years ago, Petitioner received a five-day suspension because of an altercation with an inmate in the FSH forensic section laundry room. The suspension was meted out after Petitioner became involved in an argument with an inmate and drew an opened knive in a threatening fashion. Although Petitioner denied that the blade was exposed, testimony by a co-worker established that it was exposed in a threatening fashion. The altercation was resolved, however, before any violence occurred. In mitigation, it was established that Petitioner's possession of a knive in the laundry room was not unlawful since it was necessary for him to use a knive to open the sealed buckets of detergents. On October 13, 1993, Petitioner received a written reprimand for "Abusive and/or Threatening Language." On that occasion, Petitioner was instructed by his supervisor to help fold some laundry in the laundry room. Petitioner replied that he would not and told him "to get off my fucking back." Petitioner also pointed his fist at the supervisor in a threatening manner and "threatened to kick his butt." On June 27, 1994, Petitioner was suspended for fifteen work days effective July 8, 1994, for using threatening and/or abusive language towards a supervisor. This disciplinary action was taken after Petitioner had again refused to comply with instructions by his supervisor. On that occasion, he became "real mad," called her a "motherfucker," shook his fist at her, and threatened to "get her." Although the supervisor stood her ground against Petitioner, she was "afraid" for her safety. Petitioner was less than candid in describing the incidents which led to him receiving disciplinary action by his employer in 1987, 1993, and 1994. He has, however, expressed remorse for striking his wife in 1990 and 1992, and he regrets the embarrassment he caused his wife and children. For the last four years, Petitioner has had a blemish-free record at FSH, including good evaluations from his supervisors and a reputation as one of the "better" employees in his section. Given these considerations, it is found that Petitioner has sufficiently rehabilitated himself since the disqualifying incidents, and that he will pose no threat to the FSH clients and inmates.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 252A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 456.072(1)(k) and 464.204(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Effective July 1, 1997, Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the responsibility for regulation and discipline of the nursing practice within the State of Florida. Respondent is a certified nursing assistant (CNA) holding Florida nursing certificate number CX 0993266675590. In December 2001, Respondent was employed as a CNA at Beverly Health Care, now known as Seacrest Health Care of Largo. Patient F.K. was a dementia patient in her advanced years and was not coherent or responsive. She was a total care patient, which required staff to perform all activities of daily living for her, such as mouth care, showers, feeding, dressing, bathing, and getting her into and out of bed. Patient F.K. did not speak, but did have a tendency to hum loudly and continuously. On December 20, 2001, Respondent was in Patient F.K.'s room following Patient F.K.'s return from lunch. Respondent called another CNA, Sheleta Cunningham-Talley, into Patient F.K.'s room, and Respondent engaged her in conversation. At that time, Patient F.K. was humming, as she often did. Respondent said to Talley, "watch how I shut this bitch up" and then proceeded to strike Patient F.K. on the face and throat. Patient F.K.'s face and neck turned red, and she became visibly upset after being struck. Beverly Health Care has a policy that residents have a right not to be physically abused. CNAs are under a legal or statutory duty not to hit or abuse patients. Striking a patient in the face and throat is a violation of that duty to not physically abuse a patient. Agnes Kelly is a registered nurse who was employed at Beverly Health Care during Respondent's employment there. Kelly has practiced as a registered nurse since 1994. She was a weekend supervisor at Beverly Health Care and supervised approximately 25 nursing employees which included a number of CNAs. Kelly has supervised nursing staff and CNAs for approximately nine years, and, as such, is familiar with the duties and responsibilities of CNAs. It is her opinion that Respondent violated her duty not to physically abuse a patient. Based on the foregoing, the evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent violated Sections 456.072(1)(k) and 464.204(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), by intentionally violating the statutory and legal obligation of CNAs to not physically abuse or hit a patient.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 456.072(1)(k) and 464.204(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), and revoking Respondent's certification and requiring Respondent to pay the costs of investigation and prosecution of this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kim M. Kluck, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Pearla M. Mixon 4365 Tuna Drive, Southeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Dan Coble, R.N., Ph.D., C.N.A.A. C., B.C. Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3252 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
